Tea Party Malitia. Coup and Crackers anyone?

I googled this term "tea party militia connection" and got 50,000 hits, and found this interesting article, not too long:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/4/15/133840/898

Does anyone else here think that this is significant threat to America? I know people in my own neighborhood who belong to an armed militia that is growing all over the country, I'm pretty sure that at least one has automatic assault rifles.

.

 

The concept isn't new and in actuality, this is the way it was intended to be.

In 1788 Madison wrote in The Federalist 46:

• "The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, . . . "
  
  The Federalist #46

Let's scrutinize those numbers.

At that time there were about 3 million people in what would soon be the USA.

Standing army = 1% of all persons OR 4% of those "able to bear arms," so, using the upper end of Madison's "standing army" number, 30,000 . . .
30,000 / .04 = 750,000 citizens "able to bear arms," minus the 500,000 citizens "with arms in their hands," means 250,000 will need to borrow a weapon from their neighbor if events required it.

Let's see how Madison's ratio's have held up in the ensuing 222 years.

In present day America there are 300 million or so "total souls;" the present day military force of America stands at about 2.8 million active duty and reserves. The ratio remains spot-on to Madison's formula of a nation's "standing army" carrying capability.

Madison notes two subsets, those capable of bearing arms (1/4 or 25% of the total population) and those with arms in their hands (1/5th or 20% of the total population).

So, by Madison's formula 300,000,000 total souls would render a force of 75,000,000 "able to bear arms" and 60,000,000 "with arms in their hands." (backchecking -300,000,000 * 1% = 3,000,000 standing army; 3,000,000 / .04 = 75,000,000 citizens "able to bear arms.")

The exact number of present day gun owners today is not known. The US Dept. of Justice has estimated that 75+ million Americans own between 250 million and 300 million firearms. This is arguably the exact number presently "with arms in their hands" and so exceeds Madison's original ratios by a few percentage points.

Madison envisioned any "standing army" being outnumbered ("opposed" was the word he used) by armed citizens by a factor of 17 to 1; in present day America that ratio may have widened to as much as 26 to 1 (if upper estimates of the number of gun owners are to be accepted).

While the founders did not envision every person being armed, they certainly desired a significant percentage of the citizenry to be properly situated to resist with violence.

That is the condition they intended to preserve with the enactment of the 2nd Amendment.

So, to answer your question, are Constitutionalist militias a danger to the government? Yes, as it should be . . .

Are they a danger to America? No.

 

One must always remember when Madison wrote those words firearms meant single-shot, black-powder muzzle loaders. After firing a single shot, reloading for the next took several minuets (few could in less than 1 minuet) under ideal conditions. In the field the weapons were highly unreliable and prone to misfire's and other malfunctions. Bayonets were always present and was equal to marksmanship in combat training.

Today one guy with an automatic weapon is probably equal to a small battalion of men back then!

ZW

 

And of course the "standing army" has much more sophisticated weapons than those of the Revolutionary period . . .

Usually the rebuttal to 46 is that the present weapons in the citizen's "arsenal" are woefully insufficient to fight the modern US military. Usually the rebuttal to the thought of hostilities between the two is met with raillery.

Your point is?

 

I have no problem with this. They are right, this is what the second amendment is for. And as an American I take that very seriously, it's a beautiful affirmation of freedom. While I don't agree with all their philosophies or even like them on a general principle (the tea party) someone has to stand up to the government.

Power to the people, build your militias and rock the fuck out.

 

What's the difference in what you explain here and the Confederacy? I see little difference in this Tea Party attitude and the attitudes of the Southerners who fought the Civil War. And, didn't that war settle the dispute between States rights and Central government? If my memory of History serves me, the strong central government faction won.

Are you up for another Civil War?

.

 

It's all down to interpretation.

 

We had an election in 2008. The vast majority of voters chose Obama based on his campaign promises, which included change, and health care. Now, the losers of that election are trying to subvert the will of the majority. Doesn't that make the Tea Partyers traitors of America?

.

 

I think it would be better for them to throw their support to any canidate who genuinely espouses what the Movement believes in, especially the Republicans and Democrats, but support the Libertarian candidates when the others won't come through.

 

The fact that obama is a figurehead with no real power is something you just choose to ignore?

You think when Obama asks the intelligence people for some top secrete document on what the fuck ever they don't just hand him some bullshit they just wrote up? The last president who actually had total access to the facts was probably Bush Sr.

 

What would Obama like to do?

 

Command of the U.S. Armed Forces and quite a large arsenal of nuclear weapons w/ delivery systems is a bit of power if you ask me. I think he could also have you put behind bars if he wanted.

I think they are putting their jobs on the line if they don't, he can also have them put behind bars.

And you know this.....how? There have been no surveys conducted polling past presidents on what "facts" they had access to, or not. How do you know whether or not the information the president gets is credible and full disclosure?

.

 

Is the Oklahoma state Militia a threat to America? No. They aren't as strong as the US government military, and the don't intend to do harm in the first place. Oklahoma City just wants Washington DC to butt out and leave them alone under the 10th amendment.

Is the Federal Government a threat to America? This is a better question, and the answer is yes. Because the American way of life is being destroyed by the liberals. So, I understand the frustration felt by the Sooners. I just don't agree with the way they are handling it. I don't agree with violence under most circumstances.

 

The short answer is....Yes. The long answer is....Hell Yes.

If not by violence, how then does a militia protect Ok. from the Federal government?

Your interpretation of the Constitution, and that of some people in Ok, is not the only one that exists, or even a majority opinion.

In case you haven't noticed, The Bush Gang destroyed "the American way of life." Because of them, America is in a downward spiral from which we may never recover.

What do you think the purpose of a militia is if not to perpetrate violence in defense of personal beliefs that conflict with national policy?


In 2008 we had an election and the majority voted for the Democrats to clean up the mess made by the Republicans. This attempt at forming a state militia is nothing more than a temper tantrum by the selfish losers of that election.

.

 

america was founded by the wealthy to protect their property and expansionist desires

being a constitutional fundamentalist [as tea partiers claim to be] is the same as being a fundamentalist religionist [take your pick]

really, the world is too fucked up for that kind of narrow-minded, backwards thinking

yes, american government is lousy, but that's because american government has always been lousy

sadly obama is not the progressive that voters thought he would be, but the message of 2008 was clear

the american people want progress

and the tea party is the exact opposite of progress, and thus the exact opposite of what most americans want